Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-tdptf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-18T14:25:37.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

School and Disability: A Review of the Integration Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2015

Jo Jenkinson
Jo Jenkinson*
Affiliation:
Australian Council for Educational Research
Get access

Abstract

Integration of students with disabilities into regular schools has come to be one of the most pervasive and controversial issues in special education. The so-called “efficacy” research is beset with methodological problems and offers no clear answer to the debate. This paper reviews influences underlying integration, presents models for its implementation, and discusses their implications for both school organization and disabled students. Some alternative approaches to research are discussed.

This paper is based on Jenkinson, J.C. School and Disability: Research and Practice in Integration. Australian Education Review No. 26 Hawthorn, Vic. Australian Council for Educational Research, 1987, and is reproduced with the permission of ACER.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Educational and Developmental Psychologist , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , May 1988 , pp. 21 - 26
Copyright
Copyright © Australian Psychological Society 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K., (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 14, 295–309.Google Scholar
Corman, I., & Gottlieb, J., (1978). Mainstreaming mentally retarded children: A review of research. In Ellis, N.R. (Ed.) International Review of Research in Mental Retardation. Vol. 9. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dunn, L.M., (1986). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 47, 85–89.Google Scholar
Gerber, M.M., & Semmel, M.I., (1985). Mainstreaming: Affect or effect. Journal of Special Education, 19, 317–328 Google Scholar
Gottlieb, J., (1981). Mainstreaming: Fulfilling the promise? American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 115–126.Google Scholar
Gow, L, Snow, D., Bala, J., & Hall, J., (1987). Report to the Commonwealth Schools Commission on Integration in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth Schools Commission.Google Scholar
Gresham, F.M., (1982). Misguided mainstreaming: The case for social skills training with handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 48, 422–433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gresham, F.M., (1986). Strategies for enhancing the social outcomes of mainstreaming: A necessary ingredient for success. In Miesel, C.J. (Ed.) Mainstreaming Handicapped Children: Outrcomes, Controversies, and New Directions. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hegarty, S., & Pocklington, K., (1981). Educating Pupils with Special needs in the Ordinary School Windsor: NFER-Nelson.Google Scholar
Hudson, A., & Clunies-Ross, G., (1984). A study of the integration of children with intellectual handicaps into regular schools. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 10, 165–177.Google Scholar
Jenkinson, J.C., (1983). Correlates of sociometric status among TMR children in regular classrooms. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 88, 332–335 Google Scholar
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T., (1986). Impact of classroom organization and istructional methods on the effectiveness of mainstreaming. In Meisel, C.J. (Ed.) Mainstreaming Handicapped Children: Outcomes, Controversies, and New Directions. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Madden, N., & Slavin, R.A., (1983). Mainstreaming students with mild handicaps: Academic and social outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 52 519–569.Google Scholar
Pieterse, M., & Center, Y., (1984). The integration of eight Down’s syndrome children into regular schools. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 10, 11–20.Google Scholar
Schindele, R.A., (1985). Research methodology in special education: A framework approach to special problems and solutions. In Hegarty, S. & Evans, P. (Eds) Research and Evaluation Methods in Special Education. Windsor: NFER-Nelson..Google Scholar
Semmel, M.I., Gottlieb, J., & Robinson, N.M., (1979). Mainstreaming: Perspectives on educating handicapped children in the public school. Chap. 6 in Berliner, D.C. (Ed.) Review of Research in Education. Vol. 7. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
Strain, P.S., & Kerr, M.M, (1981). Mainstreaming of Children in Schools: Research and Programmatic Issues. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Thurman, S.K., & Fiorelli, J.S., (1979). Perspectives on normalization. Journal of Special Education, 13, 339–346.Google Scholar
Tindal, G., (1985). Investigating the effectiveness of special education: An analysis of methodology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, M., & Baker, E.T., (1985–86). Mainstreaming programs: Design features and effects. Journal of Special Education, 19, 509–521.Google Scholar
Watts, B.H., Elkins, J., Henry, M.B., Apelt, W.C, Atkinson, J.K., & Cochrane, K.J., (1978). The Education of Mildly Intellectually Handicapped Children in the Eastern States of Australia: Philosophies, Practices, and Outcomes. ERDC Report No. 17, Canberra: AGPS.Google Scholar
Wolfensberger, W., (1972). Normalization: The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.Google Scholar
Zigler, E., & Hall, N., (1986). Mainstreaming and the philosophy of normalization. In Meisel, C.J. (Ed.) Mainstreaming and Handicapped Children: Outcomes, Controversies, and New Directions. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar